US Justice Dept. Argues Against Extending Reach of 'Janus' Ruling
U.S. solicitor general's office says the justices should decline the invitation from In-N-Out Burger to expand the reach of a union ruling to other workplace disputes.
January 28, 2019 at 04:46 PM
4 minute read
The U.S. Justice Department is urging the Supreme Court to turn down a petition that seeks to broaden a ruling last term against labor unions to reach other workplace disputes, including rules about what buttons and pins employees are allowed to wear.
The Justice Department asked the court to reject restaurant chain In-N-Out Burger's argument that the Supreme Court's ruling in June striking down mandatory “fair share” fees for public-sector unions should apply to a dispute over a company uniform policy for employees.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit struck down a rule that prohibited employees at the California-based burger chain from wearing any insignia on their uniforms, including “Fight for 15” buttons advocating for a minimum-wage boost. Lawyers for In-N-Out Burger, represented by Littler Mendelson, contend the Fifth Circuit decision, tied to a workplace dispute at a burger joint in Austin, Texas, unlawfully compels the company to endorse ideas and speech it finds objectionable.
The company's attorneys pointed to the Supreme Court's divided ruling last term in Janus v. AFSME, which said public-sector unions can't force the collection of so-called fair share fees from nonmembers. “The NLRB is compelling the employer to endorse and/or subsidize a pro union message by allowing 'Fight for 15' buttons to appear on the employer's official uniform,” Littler Mendelson shareholder Bruce Sarchet in Sacramento, counsel of record, wrote in a petition at the Supreme Court. Sarchet did not respond to a request for comment Monday.
U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco, opposing the Littler Mendelson petition, said the justices should let lower courts further examine the Janus decision.
“Indeed, lower courts have had just over six months to consider the scope of Janus, and few decisions have yet applied it outside the agency-fee context in which it arose. Further percolation on this issue is plainly warranted,” Francisco wrote.
➤➤ Get employment law news and commentary straight to your in-box with Labor of Law, a new Law.com briefing. Learn more and sign up here.
The case at the high court stems from 2015, when employees at an In-N-Out Burger in Austin wore “Fight for 15” pins on their uniforms. The company argued that its employees are subject to uniform rules that prevent any type of pin or sticker.
The Fifth Circuit noted that the restaurant chain requires its employees to wear company-issued buttons twice a year, one for Christmas holiday and another that solicits donations to the In-N-Out foundation focusing on preventing child abuse and neglect. “As the board observed, the Christmas and In-N-Out Foundation buttons are appreciably larger and 'significantly more conspicuous' than the 'Fight for $15' buttons,” the appeals court said.
The Justice Department said the National Labor Relations Board “and the court of appeals correctly applied settled law to the facts of this case.” The department and NLRB, quoting a 1945 Supreme Court ruling, said the “right of employees to wear union insignia” or apparel related to issues such as wages or working conditions “has long been recognized as a reasonable and legitimate form of union activity.”
Littler Mendelson's Sarchet said in his petition that “whatever the merits of the board's compelling employers to allow associates to convey such a pro union message prior to Janus, that policy must be revisited now to avoid violation of employer first amendment rights.”
State and federal courts are still exploring the reach of the Supreme Court's decision in Janus.
The Justice Department, then under the leadership of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, had urged the justices to overturn decades-old precedent to rule that public-sector unions could not force nonmembers to pay “fair share fees.” The divided Supreme Court, led by Justice Samuel Alito Jr., concluded those fees violated the First Amendment speech rights of nonunion members.
The In-N-Out Burger dispute at the Supreme Court has not been set for any conference, and any decision on whether the case will be taken up could be months away.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readGovernment Attorneys Are Flooding the Job Market, But Is There Room in Big Law?
4 minute readWill Khan Resign? FTC Chair Isn't Saying Whether She'll Stick Around After Giving Up Gavel
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250